It was not one of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool’s better days.
Losing a court case over a contractual dispute with a farmer and having to pay out more than $90,000 was bad.
Enduring a tongue-lashing from the judge made it worse.
Then to top it off, the grain company was ordered to pay $30,000 in punitive damages for what the judge describes as its “oppressive and high-handed” actions toward the farmer.
Michael Crosbie, corporate counsel for Sask Pool, said Sept. 7 the pool is considering an appeal.
Read Also
European wheat production makes big recovery
EU crop prospects are vastly improved, which could mean fewer canola and durum imports from Canada.
“At the trial SWP did present a clearly different version of the case than that accepted by the trial judge, and for that reason we do have serious concerns about her conclusions,” he said, adding the punitive damages would be one of the factors to be considered in preparing an appeal.
The judgment handed down by Court of Queen’s Bench judge Ellen Gunn in Melville, Sask., on Aug. 27, details a complex series of transactions and disputes between farmer Morris Feduk and Sask Pool.
The case has its origins in a September 1993 snowstorm. Resulting crop damage left Feduk unable to fulfill a cash call agreement to deliver 43 rail cars of No. 1 or 2 canola.
He tried to buy out the last six cars of the contract but the pool refused the offer.
The 24-page decision describes a long list of disagreements between the two sides over grain deliveries and payments during the next seven months.
The judgment consisted of three parts:
- Feduk was ordered to pay the pool $19,320, plus interest, for the unfulfilled cash call contract.
- The pool was ordered to pay Feduk $19,920.98 for unpaid canola and barley deliveries and $70,528.76 for money owing from the sale of his Sask Pool shares, plus interest.
- The pool was also ordered to pay $30,000 in punitive damages.
In an interview, Feduk said he was gratified by the judge’s ruling, but added it shouldn’t have taken so long to get fair treatment.
“They had my money tied up that I certainly could have used with the way things are in farming these days,” he said.
In her decision, Gunn accepted the farmer’s version of events when significant differences arose between Feduk’s and the pool’s version.
She found that an unidentified pool employee forged Feduk’s signature on a contract.
She found the pool intentionally deceived Feduk about contractual agreements.
She found that the pool refused to pay Feduk for grain he delivered.
She found that the pool withheld money owed to Feduk from the sale of Sask Pool shares.
In light of all that, she took the unusual step of ordering the company to pay Feduk punitive damages.
“I find the SWP’s actions towards Mr. Feduk to be extreme in nature and to be deserving of punishment,” she wrote.
Kevin Bell, the lawyer who argued the case for Feduk, said the punitive damage is a vindication.
“It’s very, very rare that punitive damages are granted except in cases where the judge finds the conduct to be reprehensible,” he said.
Sask Pool lawyer Crosbie said the judge’s comments about the pool’s behaviour do not reflect the pool’s general business practices.
“This case had some fairly unique facts involved in it and I would suggest it wouldn’t be indicative of any systemic problem.”
Feduk said the experience provides a lesson for all farmers “to have everything written out and spelled out, with nothing left to chance or doubt.”
He said he has conducted little business with the pool in recent years, but added he’s not averse to doing so in the future.
“I’m in the business of selling grain and they’re in the business of buying it, and if they give me the right deal, I’ll go there.”
